Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Bank Of India Industrial Relatons ... vs Norbert Anthony on 22 August, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40146
1 WA-1031-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 22nd OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1031 of 2024
UNION BANK OF INDIA INDUSTRIAL RELATONS DEPARTMENT
Versus
NORBERT ANTHONY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.K. Rao- Senior Advocate with Shri Sukhendra Kushwaha-
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Akash Choudhury- Advocate with Shri Naveen Vaswani-
Advocate for the respondent No.1 on advance copy.
ORDER
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Bank which is
aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.21077/2016 vide order dated 27.06.2016 by which the petition filed by
the appellant herein was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 herein was
employed in the service of the Bank. His service was terminated pursuant to
a full fledged enquiry inter alia on the grounds of committing fraud on the
bank and embezzlement. The reference was preferred to the CGIT, where
after adducing evidence, the CGIT held in favour of the workman and also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40146
2 WA-1031-2024
held that he was unemployed from the date of his termination till the
decision of the CGIT and awarded him inter alia, back wages. Undisputedly,
the bank is aggrieved of the award of back wages in this particular case.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single
Judge failed to appreciate the case of the appellant herein and that no
reasonings have been given by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the
petition filed by the appellant-Bank. Before this Court also, learned Senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank has taken this Court through the
order passed by the Court of the CGIT and has submitted that there was no
proof adduced by the respondent that he was not gainfully employed after his
termination till the proceedings before the CGIT. In this regard, he has read
out the relevant portion relating to the testimony of the respondent in which
he has denied as untrue the charges levelled against him in the Departmental
Enquiry. Thereafter, he has stated that he was not employed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it was grossly
inadequate for the respondent to have stated that he was unemployed and it
was erroneous for the CGIT to accept that as proof of his unemployment. He
further submits that there should have been some evidence put forth by way
of examination of other witnesses who could have testified to the
unemployed status of the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that it was
incumbent upon the appellant to establish that the respondent was
unemployed. He has further submitted that all that the respondent was
required to do in the proceedings before the CGIT was to state that he was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40146
3 WA-1031-2024
unemployed. He further submits that it is impossible to adduce evidence to
establish the negative. In other words, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that there can be no evidence for the status of unemployment and the
party which is opposing or refuting the unemployed status of the respondent,
which is the appellant herein, was bound to produce positive evidence to
establish that the respondent was employed. He further submits that this
could have been done by producing a witness who could testify to the
employed status of the respondent or that he was the person who had
employed the respondent and the respondent was paid salary by him. In the
absence of any positive evidence being adduced by the appellant herein, it
was not required for the respondent to state beyond the fact that he was
unemployed in order to establish his unemployed status. He has also relied
on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti
Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and Others [(2013) 10 SCC 324],
where in paragraph 38, the Supreme Court has held likewise that it is not
possible to establish a negative and only at the existence of a positive fact is
amenable to proof by adducing the evidence.
6. The orders impugned herein do not call for the interference and the same
show the application of mind at both the levels and therefore, the appeal is
dismissed.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shivani
